Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

If it has no start then the amount of it has no end.

If it has no start then there is an infinite amount of it. But it can still finish.

Once again, you equivocate on the word 'end'.

It is 'endless' insofar as it is infinite; but it still finishes.

If infinite time finishes, when in the future will infinite time finish?

 

[bilby]

If it has no start then there is an infinite amount of it. But it can still finish.

Once again, you equivocate on the word 'end'.

It is 'endless' insofar as it is infinite; but it still finishes.

If infinite time finishes, when in the future will infinite time finish?

It CAN finish. That doesn't mean it MUST.

1 Start and finish = finite
2 No start and finish = infinite
3 Start and no finish = infinite
4 No start and no finish = infinite.

The past is either 1 or 2; the future is either 1 or 3. We know the past finished - by definition. We know the future starts - by definition. So those are the possibilities in each case.

 

[untermensche]

If infinite time finishes, when in the future will infinite time finish?

It CAN finish. That doesn't mean it MUST.

1 Start and finish = finite
2 No start and finish = infinite
3 Start and no finish = infinite
4 No start and no finish = infinite.

The past is either 1 or 2; the future is either 1 or 3. We know the past finished - by definition. We know the future starts - by definition. So those are the possibilities in each case.

If they are true infinities they are symmetrical.

What you say about one you say about the other, in terms of amount or duration.

If time that never finishes has no finish then time that never starts also has no finish. It is just another way of looking at no finish.

If infinite time in the future never ends then so does infinite time in the past.

An amount of time that never finishes can't have finished at the present moment.

 

[Juma]

saying time has no beginning is saying the amount of it has no end?
.

And this is your mistake: you sloppily say that an unbounded value has "no end" and then wrongly identify that "end" with the end of the past.

If you are more careful and succint in your arguments you will lessen the risk of such mistakes.

 

[untermensche]

saying time has no beginning is saying the amount of it has no end?
.

And this is your mistake: you sloppily say that an unbounded value has "no end" and then wrongly identify that "end" with the end of the past.

If you are more careful and succint in your arguments you will lessen the risk of such mistakes.

This has been gone over and over.

The present is the beginning of the past, not the end of it.

Any past moment you pick must have been a present moment first. The past begins as the present. The present does not begin as the past.

The past is not bounded by what it starts as. It is unbounded. Just like the future.

 

[Juma]

Yes it does. But the size doesn't matter for my point; the age is what matters. A finite length of time in an infinite length of time is infinitesimally small like a point of time in our time. But a point in our time is just a 3 dimensional static structure. So it doesn't seem like infinite time would be time anymore; it seems to mean another dimension.

But the intervals of time between events would be infinitesimally small.

But the intervals of time between events would be infinitesimally small.
What? why?

See above and below.

What happens when we have the ratio (14 billion years)/(infinite number of years)?

What is that ratio suppose to mean? Seems totally meaningless to me.

This is the fraction of time that the universe exists in for some frame of reference.

Our time does not make sense to an ageless interval of time.

Yes it does. Time being infinitely old have no bearing on how old you are or that spmething happen 12 days ago.

Not for our frames of references in this universe, but it does seem to matter for the frame of reference that an infinite amount of time occurred in.

You are severaly confused. To me it seems that you have some strange metaphysical ideas that you really dont want to show. This bullshit with age and size of reference frames is one, the ratio between age of all time and age of our universe another. Neither of these concept has any real meaning. They are just your private fix ideas.

 

[Juma]

And this is your mistake: you sloppily say that an unbounded value has "no end" and then wrongly identify that "end" with the end of the past.

If you are more careful and succint in your arguments you will lessen the risk of such mistakes.

This has been gone over and over.

The present is the beginning of the past, not the end of it.

Any past moment you pick must have been a present moment first. The past begins as the present. The present does not begin as the past.

The past is not bounded by what it starts as. It is unbounded. Just like the future.

For the n:th time you totally ignore my argument.

this is your mistake: you sloppily say that an unbounded value has "no end" and then wrongly identify that "end" with the end of the past.

And yes: the current present is the end of the time that has passed (the past) and the beginning of the future.

 

[ryan]

Yes it does. But the size doesn't matter for my point; the age is what matters. A finite length of time in an infinite length of time is infinitesimally small like a point of time in our time. But a point in our time is just a 3 dimensional static structure. So it doesn't seem like infinite time would be time anymore; it seems to mean another dimension.

But the intervals of time between events would be infinitesimally small.

But the intervals of time between events would be infinitesimally small.
What? why?

See above and below.

What happens when we have the ratio (14 billion years)/(infinite number of years)?

What is that ratio suppose to mean? Seems totally meaningless to me.

This is the fraction of time that the universe exists in for some frame of reference.

Our time does not make sense to an ageless interval of time.

Yes it does. Time being infinitely old have no bearing on how old you are or that spmething happen 12 days ago.

Not for our frames of references in this universe, but it does seem to matter for the frame of reference that an infinite amount of time occurred in.

You are severaly confused. To me it seems that you have some strange metaphysical ideas that you really dont want to show. This bullshit with age and size of reference frames is one, the ratio between age of all time and age of our universe another. Neither of these concept has any real meaning. They are just your private fix ideas.

Is an infinite number of finite time intervals still time? We know that an infinite number of 0 dimensional points is no longer 0 dimensional.

Explain.

 

[untermensche]

This has been gone over and over.

The present is the beginning of the past, not the end of it.

Any past moment you pick must have been a present moment first. The past begins as the present. The present does not begin as the past.

The past is not bounded by what it starts as. It is unbounded. Just like the future.

For the n:th time you totally ignore my argument.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm trying to address it.

this is your mistake: you sloppily say that an unbounded value has "no end" and then wrongly identify that "end" with the end of the past.

I will try to make sense of this.

I do say that infinite time has no end. It is a duration of time without end. I suppose this to you means I am saying an unbounded value has no end. If so, I agree.

Now I can't identify the end of the past or the future. I can only identify the start of both.

The question is whether or not the past has an end. I do know it has a start.

And yes: the current present is the end of the time that has passed (the past) and the beginning of the future.

That is only a "loose" way of speaking.

In fact, a moment is in the present before it is in the past.

The present is the START of the past, not the end of it.

The question remains. How does infinite time end?

 

[bilby]

It CAN finish. That doesn't mean it MUST.

1 Start and finish = finite
2 No start and finish = infinite
3 Start and no finish = infinite
4 No start and no finish = infinite.

The past is either 1 or 2; the future is either 1 or 3. We know the past finished - by definition. We know the future starts - by definition. So those are the possibilities in each case.

If they are true infinities they are symmetrical.

What you say about one you say about the other, in terms of amount or duration.

But, crucially, NOT in terms of direction.

If time that never finishes has no finish then time that never starts also has no finish. It is just another way of looking at no finish.

It is not 'just another way of looking at no finish'; it is an arbitrary and stupid redefinition of 'no finish', whose only possible purpose or justification is for you to avoid admitting your mistake.

If infinite time in the future never ends then so does infinite time in the past.

Not so. This is completely wrong.

2 No start and finish = infinite

Is not the same as

3 Start and no finish = infinite

Even though both are descriptions of infinities.

An amount of time that never finishes can't have finished at the present moment.

True; but an amount of time that never starts certainly can.

 

[bilby]

And this is your mistake: you sloppily say that an unbounded value has "no end" and then wrongly identify that "end" with the end of the past.

If you are more careful and succint in your arguments you will lessen the risk of such mistakes.

This has been gone over and over.

The present is the beginning of the past, not the end of it.

This is a very unusual way to define these words; but if we use these meanings (and don't change them!) for the sake of argument, then there is no need for the past to 'end'

Any past moment you pick must have been a present moment first. The past begins as the present. The present does not begin as the past.

The past is not bounded by what it starts as. It is unbounded. Just like the future.

And if so, it is INFINITE.

So what exactly have the last 2,385 posts been in aid of?

 

[Juma]

For the n:th time you totally ignore my argument.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm trying to address it.

this is your mistake: you sloppily say that an unbounded value has "no end" and then wrongly identify that "end" with the end of the past.

I will try to make sense of this.

I do say that infinite time has no end. It is a duration of time without end. I suppose this to you means I am saying an unbounded value has no end. If so, I agree.

Now I can't identify the end of the past or the future. I can only identify the start of both.

The question is whether or not the past has an end. I do know it has a start.

And yes: the current present is the end of the time that has passed (the past) and the beginning of the future.

That is only a "loose" way of speaking.

In fact, a moment is in the present before it is in the past.

The present is the START of the past, not the end of it.

The question remains. How does infinite time end?

Then you start the past all the time... That really doesnt make sense,

It is the present that moves (with speed c in a resting reference frame) in time. Earlier events is in the past and coming events in the future.

 

[untermensche]

I'm not ignoring it. I'm trying to address it.

this is your mistake: you sloppily say that an unbounded value has "no end" and then wrongly identify that "end" with the end of the past.

I will try to make sense of this.

I do say that infinite time has no end. It is a duration of time without end. I suppose this to you means I am saying an unbounded value has no end. If so, I agree.

Now I can't identify the end of the past or the future. I can only identify the start of both.

The question is whether or not the past has an end. I do know it has a start.

And yes: the current present is the end of the time that has passed (the past) and the beginning of the future.

That is only a "loose" way of speaking.

In fact, a moment is in the present before it is in the past.

The present is the START of the past, not the end of it.

The question remains. How does infinite time end?

Then you start the past all the time... That really doesnt make sense,

It is the present that moves (with speed c in a resting reference frame) in time. Earlier events is in the past and coming events in the future.

The past is simply an imaginary conception.

But it can be thought of as an unending sheet of paper flowing from a printer and the printer represents the present moments being imprinted on the paper.

The past flows away from the present just like the future.

It doesn't end at the present.

And the present doesn't move. It is always the present. No matter how fast you move.

No matter how fast you move you will tell me you are at the present.

 

[untermensche]

Any past moment you pick must have been a present moment first. The past begins as the present. The present does not begin as the past.

The past is not bounded by what it starts as. It is unbounded. Just like the future.

And if so, it is INFINITE.

So what exactly have the last 2,385 posts been in aid of?

By unbounded I mean it is not bound by the present. It flows from the present.

The present is the start of the past, not the end of it.

The question of this thread is; Is it possible for the past to be unbounded on the other end?

If it is unbounded on the other end then it is an amount that will never end.

 

[Juma]

A finite length of time in an infinite length of time is infinitesimally small like a point of time in our time.

No. The time between events is not in any way depending on wether time has a beginning or not.

Is an infinite number of finite time intervals still time?

If they are consecutive and not reordered then obvuosly yes.

 

[Juma]

And if so, it is INFINITE.

So what exactly have the last 2,385 posts been in aid of?

By unbounded I mean it is not bound by the present. It flows from the present.

The present is the start of the past, not the end of it.

The question of this thread is; Is it possible for the past to be unbounded on the other end?

If it is unbounded on the other end then it is an amount that will never end.

The past is not an amount.

 

[untermensche]

By unbounded I mean it is not bound by the present. It flows from the present.

The present is the start of the past, not the end of it.

The question of this thread is; Is it possible for the past to be unbounded on the other end?

If it is unbounded on the other end then it is an amount that will never end.

The past is not an amount.

It is conceptually an amount of time that has already occurred.

 

[bilby]

And if so, it is INFINITE.

So what exactly have the last 2,385 posts been in aid of?

By unbounded I mean it is not bound by the present. It flows from the present.

The present is the start of the past, not the end of it.

The question of this thread is; Is it possible for the past to be unbounded on the other end?

If it is unbounded on the other end then it is an amount that will never end.

Indeed; and so far there has been no reasoning given that would allow us to determine whether or not that is the case; so the past may be finite, or it may be infinite.

/thread.

 

[Juma]

The past is not an amount.

It is conceptually an amount of time that has already occurred.

No. The past is the events themselves: history.

 

[untermensche]

Indeed; and so far there has been no reasoning given that would allow us to determine whether or not that is the case; so the past may be finite, or it may be infinite.

/thread.

Fucking Christ!!!

The argument is that an amount of time that never ends can't have ended at the present moment.